 | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Right. Or at least closer. What I'm getting at is that evolution is a natural process that produces changes in organisms in response to changes in environment (including the changes that occur in other organisms) but that we are now choosing, (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Jennifer Clark
|
| | | | | (...) to (...) Have you read the novels "Last and First Men" and "Starmaker" by Olaf Stapledon? They deal with exactly those issues but on a grand scale, and are *exceptionally* humbling reads. Highly recommended! Jennifer (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) Not a bad point, but it must be stipulated that since humanity is *part* of nature, then the traits we, as agents of nature, elect to favor will survive and be passed on in a manner exactly consistent with evolution. I'm not sure that the (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I thought this was an interesting perspective: From the OU ==+== Infant mortality is a thing of the past, major diseases are treatable and natural disasters largely avoidable, so the merciless selective forces of nature are something of an (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | (...) I think these points interact in an interesting way. (...) I'm no physiologist, and this is largely based on mediocre SF, but I think it's quite possible that humans will evolve rapidly as a response to low gravity conditions (if that's not a (...) (23 years ago, 30-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | (...) I think one of the biggest shifts in our species "unnatural evolution" will come when we stop worrying about the effect of zerogee (ZG) on the human body and split into ZG and PlusG branches, where ZGs will have no DESIRE to visit planets and (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Dave Low
|
| | | | | | (...) <nit-pick> I think this is totally natural evolution. Our technology is an extension of our phenotype, just culturally expressed rather than genetically, and since it lets us access a new environment it makes biological sense that we adapt to (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Christopher Tracey
|
| | | | | (...) I'll have to partially disagree. Humankind has done a lot to *lessen" selection pressure on ourselves but we, to my knowledge, have not found a way to eliminate an environmental factor (in the broad sense). However, humans will continue to (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Future of Humanity (was: lotsa stuff) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | (...) Yes, the total population outsystem won't really matter - as long as there are a few HUNDRED beings concentrated in one place (to handle rearing of crechebabies), and sufficient genetic stock stockpiled in many different places, we should be (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
